| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
- Bodei, Lisa, et al.
(author)
-
Molecular profiling of neuroendocrine tumours to predict response and toxicity to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy
- 2020
-
In: The Lancet Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 21:9, s. E431-E443
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is a type of radiotherapy that targets peptide receptors and is typically used for neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). Some of the key challenges in its use are the prediction of efficacy and toxicity, patient selection, and response optimisation. In this Review, we assess current knowledge on the molecular profile of NETs and the strategies and tools used to predict, monitor, and assess the toxicity of PRRT. The few mutations in tumour genes that can be evaluated (eg, ATM and DAXX) are limited to pancreatic NETs and are most likely not informative. Assays that are transcriptomic or based on genes are effective in the prediction of radiotherapy response in other cancers. A blood-based assay for eight genes (the PRRT prediction quotient [PPQ]) has an overall accuracy of 95% for predicting responses to PRRT in NETs. No molecular markers exist that can predict the toxicity of PRRT. Candidate molecular targets include seven single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are susceptible to radiation. Transcriptomic evaluations of blood and a combination of gene expression and specific SNPs, assessed by machine learning with algorithms that are tumour-specific, might yield molecular tools to enhance the efficacy and safety of PRRT.
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
|
|
| 25. |
- Buunen, Mark, et al.
(author)
-
Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial.
- 2009
-
In: The lancet oncology. - 1474-5488 .- 1470-2045. ; 10:1, s. 44-52
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer has been proven safe, but debate continues over whether the available long-term survival data justify implementation of laparoscopic techniques in surgery for colon cancer. The aim of the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial was to compare 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival after laparoscopic and open resection of solitary colon cancer. METHODS: Between March 7, 1997, and March 6, 2003, patients recruited from 29 European hospitals with a solitary cancer of the right or left colon and a body-mass index up to 30 kg/m(2) were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open surgery as curative treatment in this non-inferiority randomised trial. Disease-free survival at 3 years after surgery was the primary outcome, with a prespecified non-inferiority boundary at 7% difference between groups. Secondary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality, number of positive resection margins, local recurrence, port-site or wound-site recurrence, and blood loss during surgery. Neither patients nor health-care providers were blinded to patient groupings. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00387842. FINDINGS: During the recruitment period, 1248 patients were randomly assigned to either open surgery (n=621) or laparoscopic surgery (n=627). 172 were excluded after randomisation, mainly because of the presence of distant metastases or benign disease, leaving 1076 patients eligible for analysis (542 assigned open surgery and 534 assigned laparoscopic surgery). Median follow-up was 53 months (range 0.03-60). Positive resection margins, number of lymph nodes removed, and morbidity and mortality were similar in both groups. The combined 3-year disease-free survival for all stages was 74.2% (95% CI 70.4-78.0) in the laparoscopic group and 76.2% (72.6-79.8) in the open-surgery group (p=0.70 by log-rank test); the difference in disease-free survival after 3 years was 2.0% (95% CI -3.2 to 7.2). The hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival (open vs laparoscopic surgery) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.74-1.15). The combined 3-year overall survival for all stages was 81.8% (78.4-85.1) in the laparoscopic group and 84.2% (81.1-87.3) in the open-surgery group (p=0.45 by log-rank test); the difference in overall survival after 3 years was 2.4% (95% CI -2.1 to 7.0; HR 0.95 [0.74-1.22]). INTERPRETATION: Our trial could not rule out a difference in disease-free survival at 3 years in favour of open colectomy because the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference just exceeded the predetermined non-inferiority boundary of 7%. However, the difference in disease-free survival between groups was small and, we believe, clinically acceptable, justifying the implementation of laparoscopic surgery into daily practice. Further studies should address whether laparoscopic surgery is superior to open surgery in this setting.
|
|
| 26. |
|
|
| 27. |
- Colleoni, Marco, et al.
(author)
-
Extended adjuvant intermittent letrozole versus continuous letrozole in postmenopausal women with breast cancer (SOLE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.
- 2018
-
In: The Lancet. Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 1474-5488 .- 1470-2045. ; 19:1, s. 127-138
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In animal models of breast cancer, resistance to continuous use of letrozole can be reversed by withdrawal and reintroduction of letrozole. We therefore hypothesised that extended intermittent use of adjuvant letrozole would improve breast cancer outcome compared with continuous use of letrozole in postmenopausal women.We did the multicentre, open-label, randomised, parallel, phase 3 SOLE trial in 240 centres (academic, primary, secondary, and tertiary care centres) in 22 countries. We enrolled postmenopausal women of any age with hormone receptor-positive, lymph node-positive, and operable breast cancer for which they had undergone local treatment (surgery with or without radiotherapy) and had completed 4-6 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy. They had to be clinically free of breast cancer at enrolment and without evidence of recurrent disease at any time before randomisation. We randomly assigned women (1:1) to treatment groups of either continuous use of letrozole (2·5 mg/day orally for 5 years) or intermittent use of letrozole (2·5 mg/day orally for 9 months followed by a 3-month break in years 1-4 and then 2·5 mg/day during all 12 months of year 5). Randomisation was done by principal investigators or designee at respective centres through the internet-based system of the International Breast Cancer Study Group, was stratified by type of previous endocrine therapy (aromatase inhibitors only vs selective oestrogen receptor modulators only vs both therapies), and used permuted block sizes of four and institutional balancing. No one was masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed by the intention-to-treat principle using a stratified log-rank test. All patients in the intention-to-treat population who initiated protocol treatment during their period of trial participation were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00553410, and EudraCT, number 2007-001370-88; and long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing.Between Dec 5, 2007, and Oct 8, 2012, 4884 women were enrolled and randomised after exclusion of patients at a non-adherent centre, found to have inadequate documentation of informed consent, immediately withdrew consent, or randomly assigned to intervention groups in error. 4851 women comprised the intention-to-treat population that compared extended intermittent letrozole use (n=2425) with continuous letrozole use (n=2426). After a median follow-up of 60 months (IQR 53-72), disease-free survival was 85·8% (95% CI 84·2-87·2) in the intermittent letrozole group compared with 87·5% (86·0-88·8) in the continuous letrozole group (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·93-1·26; p=0·31). Adverse events were reported as expected and were similar between the two groups. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were hypertension (584 [24%] of 2417 in the intermittent letrozole group vs 517 [21%] of 2411 in the continuous letrozole group) and arthralgia (136 [6%] vs 151 [6%]). 54 patients (24 [1%] in the intermittent letrozole group and 30 [1%] in the continuous letrozole group) had grade 3-5 CNS cerebrovascular ischaemia, 16 (nine [<1%] vs seven [<1%]) had grade 3-5 CNS haemorrhage, and 40 (19 [1%] vs 21 [1%]) had grade 3-5 cardiac ischaemia. In total, 23 (<1%) of 4851 patients died while on trial treatment (13 [<1%] of 2417 patients in the intermittent letrozole group vs ten [<1%] of 2411 in the continuous letrozole group).In postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, extended use of intermittent letrozole did not improve disease-free survival compared with continuous use of letrozole. An alternative schedule of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy with letrozole, including intermittent administration, might be feasible and the results of the SOLE trial support the safety of temporary treatment breaks in selected patients who might require them.Novartis and the International Breast Cancer Study Group.
|
|
| 28. |
- Copland, Emma, et al.
(author)
-
Antihypertensive treatment and risk of cancer : an individual participant data meta-analysis
- 2021
-
In: The Lancet Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 22:4, s. 558-570
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Findings 33 trials met the inclusion criteria, and included 260 447 participants with 15 012 cancer events. Median follow-up of included participants was 4?2 years (IQR 3?0?5?0). In the individual participant data meta-analysis comparing each drug class with all other comparators, no associations were identified between any antihypertensive drug class and risk of any cancer (HR 0?99 [95% CI 0?95?1?04] for ACEIs; 0?96 [0?92?1?01] for ARBs; 0?98 [0?89?1?07] for 13 blockers; 1?01 [0?95?1?07] for thiazides), with the exception of calcium channel blockers (1?06 [1?01?1?11]). In the network meta-analysis comparing drug classes against placebo, we found no excess cancer risk with any drug class (HR 1?00 [95% CI 0?93?1?09] for ACEIs; 0?99 [0?92?1?06] for ARBs; 0?99 [0?89?1?11] for 13 blockers; 1?04 [0?96?1?13] for calcium channel blockers; 1?00 [0?90?1?10] for thiazides). Summary Background Some studies have suggested a link between antihypertensive medication and cancer, but the evidence is so far inconclusive. Thus, we aimed to investigate this association in a large individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Methods We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from Jan 1, 1966, to Sept 1, 2019, to identify potentially eligible randomised controlled trials. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing one blood pressure lowering drug class with a placebo, inactive control, or other blood pressure lowering drug. We also required that trials had at least 1000 participant years of follow-up in each treatment group. Trials without cancer event information were excluded. We requested individual participant data from the authors of eligible trials. We pooled individual participant-level data from eligible trials and assessed the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), 13 blockers, calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics on cancer risk in one-stage individual participant data and network meta-analyses. Cause-specific fixed-effects Cox regression models, stratified by trial, were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). The primary outcome was any cancer event, defined as the first occurrence of any cancer diagnosed after randomisation. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018099283). Findings 33 trials met the inclusion criteria, and included 260 447 participants with 15 012 cancer events. Median follow-up of included participants was 4 & middot;2 years (IQR 3 & middot;0 & ndash;5 & middot;0). In the individual participant data meta-analysis comparing each drug class with all other comparators, no associations were identified between any antihypertensive drug class and risk of any cancer (HR 0 & middot;99 [95% CI 0 & middot;95 & ndash;1 & middot;04] for ACEIs; 0 & middot;96 [0 & middot;92 & ndash;1 & middot;01] for ARBs; 0 & middot;98 [0 & middot;89 & ndash;1 & middot;07] for 13 blockers; 1 & middot;01 [0 & middot;95 & ndash;1 & middot;07] for thiazides), with the exception of calcium channel blockers (1 & middot;06 [1 & middot;01 & ndash;1 & middot;11]). In the network meta-analysis comparing drug classes against placebo, we found no excess cancer risk with any drug class (HR 1 & middot;00 [95% CI 0 & middot;93 & ndash;1 & middot;09] for ACEIs; 0 & middot;99 [0 & middot;92 & ndash;1 & middot;06] for ARBs; 0 & middot;99 [0 & middot;89 & ndash;1 & middot;11] for 13 blockers; 1 & middot;04 [0 & middot;96 & ndash;1 & middot;13] for calcium channel blockers; 1 & middot;00 [0 & middot;90 & ndash;1 & middot;10] for thiazides). Interpretation We found no consistent evidence that antihypertensive medication use had any effect on cancer risk. Although such findings are reassuring, evidence for some comparisons was insufficient to entirely rule out excess risk, in particular for calcium channel blockers.
|
|
| 29. |
- de Boniface, Jana, et al.
(author)
-
Completion axillary lymph node dissection for the identification of pN2–3 status as an indication for adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment : a post-hoc analysis of the randomised, phase 3 SENOMAC trial
- 2024
-
In: The Lancet Oncology. - : Elsevier. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 25:9, s. 1222-1230
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: In luminal breast cancer, adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitors (eg, abemaciclib) improve invasive disease-free survival. In patients with T1–2, grade 1–2 tumours, and one or two sentinel lymph node metastases, completion axillary lymph node dissection (cALND) is the only prognostic tool available that can reveal four or more nodal metastases (pN2–3), which is the only indication for adjuvant abemaciclib in this setting. However, this technique can lead to substantial arm morbidity in patients. We aimed to pragmatically describe the potential benefit and harm of this strategy on the individual patient level in patients from the ongoing SENOMAC trial.Methods: In the randomised, phase 3, SENOMAC trial, patients aged 18 years or older, of any performance status, with clinically node-negative T1–T3 breast cancer and one or two sentinel node macrometastases from 67 sites in five European countries (Denmark, Germany, Greece, Italy, and Sweden) were randomly assigned (1:1), via permutated block randomisation (random block size of 2 and 4) stratified by country, to either cALND or its omission (ie, they had a sentinel lymph node biopsy only). The primary outcome is overall survival, which is yet to be reported. In this post-hoc analysis, patients from the SENOMAC per-protocol population, with luminal oestrogen-receptor positive, HER2-negative, T1–2, histological grade 1–2 breast cancer, with tumour size of 5 cm or smaller were selected to match the characteristics of cohort 1 of the monarchE trial who would only have an indication for adjuvant abemaciclib if found to have 4 or more nodal metastases. The primary study objective was to determine the number of patients who developed patient-reported severe or very severe impairment of physical arm function after cALND (as measured by the Lymphedema Functioning, Disability, and Health [Lymph-ICF] Questionnaire) 1 year after surgery to avoid one invasive disease-free survival event at 5 years with 2 years of adjuvant abemaciclib, using invasive disease-free survival event data from cohort 1 of the monarchE trial. The SENOMAC trial is registered with ClincialTrials.gov, NCT02240472, and is closed to accrual and ongoing.Findings: Between Jan 31, 2015, and Dec 31, 2021, 2766 patients were enrolled in SENOMAC and randomly assigned to cALND (n=1384) or sentinel node biopsy only (n=1382), of whom 2540 were included in the per-protocol population. 1705 (67%) of 2540 patients met this post-hoc study's eligibility criteria, of whom 802 (47%) had a cALND and 903 (53%) had a sentinel lymph node biopsy only. Median age at randomisation was 62 years (IQR 52–71), 1699 (>99%) of 1705 patients were female, and six (<1%) were male. Among 1342 patients who responded to questionnaires, after a median follow-up of 45·2 months (IQR 25·6–59·8; data cutoff Nov 17, 2023), patient-reported severe or very severe impairment of physical arm function was reported in 84 (13%) of 634 patients who had cALND versus 30 (4%) of 708 who had sentinel lymph node biopsy only (χ2 test p<0·0001). To avoid one invasive disease-free survival event at 5 years with adjuvant abemaciclib, cALND would need to be performed in 104 patients, and would result in nine patients having severe or very severe impairment of physical arm function 1 year after surgery.Interpretation: As a method to potentially identify an indication for abemaciclib, and subsequently avoid invasive disease-free survival events at 5 years with 2 years of adjuvant abemaciclib, cALND carries a substantial risk of severe or very severe arm morbidity and so cALND should be discouraged for this purpose. Funding: Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, the Nordic Cancer Union, and the Swedish Breast Cancer Association.
|
|
| 30. |
|
|
